"Daniel Weintraub: Contribution limits hamper Angelides' campaign"

See this Sacramento Bee column, which begins: "Californians too eager to take the politics out of political campaigns have boxed themselves into a corner. Thanks to strict limits on contributions to people running for public office, you now have to be a millionaire or have millionaire friends, or both, to run for governor."

"Term limits take out legislative leaders"

Stateline offers this report.

"Watchdog group makes quiet gains for transparency in corporate giving"

The Hill offers this report, which begins: "With ethics and campaign-finance reform making plenty of headlines this year, one might think the watchdog Center for Political Accountability would be a household name inside the Beltway. But the group operates mainly under the radar -- and prefers it that way."

"Federal Court Expected to Rule Shortly On Latest Challenge to BCRA Ad Limits"

BNA Money and Politics Report offers this report (paid subscription required), which begins: "A three-judge federal court in Washington , D.C., is expected to decide within the coming days whether to block the Federal Election Commission from enforcing restrictions on funding of political advertising under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (Christian Civic League Of Maine Inc. v. FEC, D.D.C., Civil No. 06-614, hearing on preliminary injunction 4/24/06). The three-judge panel gave no indication after an April 24 hearing when and how it would rule on the bid for a preliminary injunction, but attorneys involved in the case said they expected to court to move expeditiously." See also this Boston Globe report.

"GOP Push on 527s Is Simply a Partisan Ploy"

Roll Call offers this oped by Marc Elias (paid subscription required).

In the Election Law Mailbag

Thomas Stratmann has sent me "Ballot Access Restrictions and Candidate Entry in Elections," 21 European Journal of Political Economy 59 (2005). From the abstract:

In many states of the United States, candidates must meet certain requirements in order to be listed on the ballot. Such requirements include filing fees and minimum number of collected signatures. Incumbents have incentives to use these requirements to protect themselves from competition by reducing entry of potential challengers. To date, there is very little evidence regarding whether such requirements have negative consequences for candidate competition in elections and challenger entry into electoral races. This paper examines the impact of filing fees and signature requirements on the number of candidates in U.S. state races in state Lower House elections in 1998 and 2000. The findings show that higher filing fees reduce both the number of major-party and minor-party candidates. However, filing fees are more effective in deterring minor-party candidates from contesting political office than major-party candidates. More stringent signature requirements reduce the number of major-party candidates

Michael Kang has sent me three articles (besides a book review in ELJ that I've already noted):
The Bright Side of Partisan Gerrymandering, 14 Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy 443 (2005)
>From Broadcasting to Narrowcasting: The Emerging Challenge for Campaign Finance Law, 73 George Washington Law Review 1070 (2005)
The Hydraulics and Politics of Party Regulation, 91 Iowa Law Review 131 (2005).

DOJ Preclearance Letter for Revised Georgia Voter ID Law

You can find it here.

-- 
Rick Hasen
William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola Law School
919 Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA  90015-1211
(213)736-1466
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org